"There are real or perceived health risks to humans and deer from CWD as well as secondary risks to economic, esthetic, cultural,
and environmental values from the effects of the disease or its management."
(D146)

In making decisions about programmes to control a disease
it is important to identify and assess as far as practical:

The costs, direct and indirect, associated with the
disease;

The costs and the benefits expected from various
control strategies.

In many cases these costs and benefits will have to be estimated, or
cannot be put into monetary terms.

It is difficult to estimate either the current or the potential
economic implications of CWD. (D143)

Further research is required on the economic, ecological and social impacts of CWD and of CWD management
programmes. (D110,
D118)

For the animal, the
risks/costs are those directly associated with the disease in that animal, and the directs
effects of different control strategies.

Costs from the disease:

CWD is self-sustaining in both farmed and free-living populations of
deer and elk. (J1.34.w6,
J1.36.w4)

The disease causes gradually-developing but eventually severe
clinical signs and is invariably fatal. Infection with CWD can be
expected to shorten the life span of an animal.

There is an unknown impact of CWD on population dynamics of affected
populations. (P10.67.w1)

Information from outbreaks of the disease in captive facilities, and
the results of models of the disease, indicate that eventually the
disease could affect and kill high percentages of the population
(mortality of up to 100% has been seen in captivity) and could cause
extinction of infected populations. . (J40.65.w1)

Information available to date suggests that the prevalence in
populations will increase, initially slowly, with eventual decimation
of the population but long term persistence and spread of CWD due to
dispersal and the spatial structure of populations of deer. (J40.65.w1)

Models suggest that the disease could substantially harm
infected populations of cervids by lowering survival rates for adults
and destabilising long-term population dynamics. Quarantine of
affected populations limits their usefulness and value. (J64.21.w17)

Data from models indicate that CWD could cause significant
reductions in local deer populations in affected areas, even
population collapse, and that the affected area would be likely to
increase in size (e.g. more than ten fold in Wisconsin over ten
years. (D109.w5)

Costs from control measures:

Depopulation to control CWD will involve culling many
animals, including animals which are not clinically affected by CWD
and even animals which have never been infected. In the short term,
more animals will be killed in depopulation efforts than would be
killed by the disease. (D109.w5)

Population reduction to control CWD will involve culling many
animals, including animals which are not clinically affected by CWD
and even animals which have never been infected. In the short term,
more animals will be killed in population reduction efforts than would
be killed by the disease.

If, as appears possible from some epidemiological models, CWD caused
local or larger area extinctions of deer populations, this could have
a variety of impacts of the environment. These might be both positive
and negative.

If perceived human health risks cause a cessation or dramatic
decrease in hunting by the public in certain areas this could result
in excessive growth of deer populations and resultant adverse effects on
wildlife habitats. (D124)

Costs from control measures:

Depopulation and herd reduction, where undertaken in management
efforts, could have a variety of impacts on the environment which could
be positive as well as negative.

Ecological effects.
The specific ecological effects
of reduced deer population size in an EZ Prion gene sequence analysis of CWD-positive and CWD-negative
Odocoileus virginianus - White-tailed deer from Wisconsin’s current EZ
[Eradication Zone] would vary depending on the
location of the zone. Currently, the EZ defined by the 2002 emergency
rule covers a 411 square mile area in southwestern Wisconsin. If CWD is
confined to southwestern Wisconsin, the ecological effects of deer
depopulation would be more limited than if a much larger EZ is defined
in response to the discovery of CWD in other regions of the state. Few
studies have directly measured deer density and its effects on the
entire ecosystem. Short and longterm ecosystem effects are
situation-specific, but documented negative effects of deer on
ecosystems are virtually always a function of overabundance (reviews in
VanderZouwen and Warnke 1995, Waller and Alverson 1997, McShea et al.
1997). The recent Environmental Assessment done to evaluate effects of
altering deer management unit boundaries and population goals (VanderZouwen
and Warnke 1995) contains an exhaustive review of the scientific
literature on deer density effects on ecosystems at that time. The
following paragraphs are summaries of that effort for discrete ecosystem
components. Literature citations are not repeated here but can be found
in the Environmental Assessment, which can be obtained by contacting the
DNR through their website at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us.

Herbaceous Vegetation. Reducing the deer herd to
zero could have an effect on herbaceous plants. Deer eat a wide variety
of herbaceous plants during the growing season (species from 70 genera
and/or families in the north and 53 in the south). Characteristics of
herbaceous plant species that could benefit by very low deer populations
include rare species, species found in restricted habitats, short-lived
species, species that produce only single stems, and species highly
preferred by deer. Species that are common and well distributed are
unlikely to be greatly affected unless they are highly selected by deer.
Prairie forbs selected by deer tend to have a relatively low abundance
compared to the other more abundant prairie species; therefore, lower
deer populations could have a significant benefit on the reproductive
output of these species. Forest species that could benefit are bluebead
lily and Canada mayflower. In southern fragmented woodlands,
large-leaved trillium could benefit at deer densities less than 15 deer
per square mile. The literature provides few deer density estimates when
impacts become significant for a given species. Although there are few
data to base judgments on what deer densities affect herbaceous
vegetation, deer densities at low levels may likely benefit some rare
species, some forbs in native prairies, some spring ephemeral in
southern woodlands, and some forest floor species in the north,
especially those found in restricted habitats.

Woody Vegetation. Since deer browse woody
vegetation during winter, regeneration, abundance, and vigor of trees
and shrubs could benefit from reduced deer numbers. Information is
inadequate to scientifically determine the overall impacts of deer
densities on the vegetation in the state. There have been studies
documenting extreme high levels of deer herbivory but few carefully
designed studies assessing the effects of different deer densities on
vegetation. Generally, the published literature reports moderately heavy
browse impacts occur to the most preferred trees and shrubs at deer
densities of 20 per square mile. Heavy impacts were noted in many states
at greater than 25 deer per square mile. These studies were conducted in
regions of the country where forests have higher productivity (carrying
capacity) than Wisconsin. Based on these studies and productivity of
Wisconsin forests, moderately heavy browse impacts could occur at 15-20
deer per square mile and heavy browse impacts could occur at more than
20 deer per square mile in Wisconsin. These preferred tree and shrub
species could benefit from lower deer numbers. Impacts by deer on woody
vegetation in northern Wisconsin during winter can be significant if
deer are concentrated within an area for thermal cover and mobility
during times of deep snow. Preferred conifers sensitive to browsing (
e.g., white cedar, hemlock, Canada yew, and white pine under some
conditions) may benefit at low deer densities in these local wintering
areas. The overall extent of this impact is unknown and would depend on
how much and how often deer are concentrated. At low deer densities in
the north, preferred deciduous trees sensitive to browsing ( e.g.,
yellow birch, basswood, oaks, and white ash) and shrubs may also
benefit. Oak species and other preferred shrub species in the southern
regions might benefit from low deer population densities. Deer impact on
conifers in summer is negligible since they seldom use them in that
season. Impacts on deciduous trees and shrubs by browsing leaves and new
shoots can be substantial. Lower deer levels concentrating in the
northern region around a summer food source ( e.g., regenerating
clearcut or forest opening) could benefit preferred deciduous species
that are sensitive to browsing (yellow birch, basswood, and white ash).
In southern regions, lower deer densities could benefit preferred
species such as the oaks, basswood, and white ash.

Invertebrates. Some species could benefit from
lower deer densities by indirect effects on vegetation. There are no
data suggesting how invertebrates are affected by different deer
densities. Inference from knowledge about invertebrates would suggest
that the increase of a plant species that supports a hostspecific
invertebrate population, due to reduced deer browsing, would cause that
invertebrate population to increase. Some invertebrates would benefit
more than others because of reduced deer herbivory. Invertebrates
requiring a single plant species to complete its life cycle would likely
benefit from lower deer numbers. Invertebrate species that use only the
flowering part of one plant to complete its life cycle that is highly
preferred by deer would benefit even more from lower deer numbers. A
detailed analysis of the impacts of deer browsing on invertebrates and
host-specific plants needed to complete their life cycle is needed to
understand the effects of deer herbivory on invertebrates. It is
possible that a reduced deer herd could result in fewer deer ticks and a
possible reduction in cases of Lyme disease and Erhlichiosis.

Herptiles (reptiles and amphibians) . Reduced
deer numbers could indirectly benefit or harm herptile species. There
are no data on deer effects on herptiles. Indirect effects by deer
changing habitats are the only way to assess deer impacts on herptiles
at this time. Deer could modify the habitat structure needed by specific
herptiles or change the food base (invertebrates) for herptile species.
Thirty-eight herptiles (14 rare) occur in the same habitats as deer and
could potentially be affected by deer herbivory. Although no data exists
for analysis, the following suggestions are inferred from what is known
about herptiles and their habitats. All of the state’s insectivorous
herptiles are believed to be generalists, and it is unlikely deer are
causing a general decline in invertebrate biomass and reducing the food
base for herptiles. It is more likely that deer could alter habitats and
indirectly affect herptiles. Of the 14 rare herptile species, five need
open habitats ( i.e. wood turtle, Blanding’s turtle, ornate box
turtle, western worm snake, and prairie ringneck snake) and are
suffering from advancing woody plant species succession. Reduced deer
densities and browsing might harm these herptile species by reducing
more open habitat. Four herptile species need moderate levels of brush
and open habitats (western slender glass lizard, bull snake, eastern
massasauga rattlesnake, and timber rattlesnake). These species could be
positively or negatively affected depending on the intensity of
browsing. The remaining five rare herptiles would be unaffected by deer
density (four-toed salamander, northern ringneck snake, black rat snake,
Butller’s garter snake, and the western ribbon snake). The density of
deer needed to bring about these habitat changes is unknown.

Small mammals. No direct relationship between
deer and small mammals was found. Deer, however, may impact small
mammals by altering their habitat ( e.g., litter layer) and food base (
e.g., seeds) by changing plant composition. Reduced deer densities could
therefore benefit or harm certain small mammal species depending on the
species' habitat needs.

Birds. Bird species could indirectly benefit or
be harmed by changes in vegetation caused by deer foraging. Three
studies discuss impacts of differing deer densities on birds in the
eastern United States. Ground and canopy nesting birds do not seem to be
greatly affected by deer browsing. Shrub nesting species were most
impacted by deer browsing if the shrub layer is reduced. Bird species
least likely to be affected by deer browsing in are ground or canopy
nesting species. However, long-term impacts on forest species
composition by deer browsing (shift toward conifers in canopy) could
benefit canopy-nesting birds preferring conifers ( e.g., hemlock and
white cedar) in northern Wisconsin. Deer densities in northern Wisconsin
are close to the level where negative impacts on shrub nesting birds
were documented in other states. It is unclear where significant impacts
of deer browsing on birds begin, but it is believed to be between 15-30
deer per square mile. When deer densities reached 35 deer per square
mile there were documented negative impacts on some bird species in the
eastern U.S. These studies were conducted in regions of the country
where forests have higher productivity (carrying capacity) than
Wisconsin. For forests in Wisconsin, lower deer densities than those
reported above could affect bird species. In the northern region,
species like black-throated blue warblers, Canada warblers, and Swainson’s
thrush would likely benefit from lower deer densities. If the developing
canopy does include conifers, then species like blackburnian warbler,
golden-crowned kinglet, and northern parula may benefit in the future.
Some deer densities in the south are at or very close to the deer
densities that significantly impacted birds in eastern studies. Species
that may benefit most from lower deer densities in southern Wisconsin
are chestnut-sided warblers, worm eating warblers, mourning warbler,
Kentucky warbler, and hooded warbler. The wood thrush might also benefit
because it nests primarily in shrubs or saplings in Wisconsin. Other
species that might be affected by less deer browsing in southern
Wisconsin are the veery and white-eyed, Bell’s, and red-eyed vireos.
It is not expected that lower deer densities would have a significant
impact on turkey densities.

Moose and Elk. Both populations of moose and elk
are extremely small in Wisconsin at this point in time. Interspecific
competition between elk, moose, and deer does not seem likely except in
severe winters when both elk and deer may occupy conifer yards. Due to
the extremely small populations of moose and elk in Wisconsin,
competition among these three species seems insignificant. Deer act as a
reservoir for the parasite Parelaphostrongylustenuis. Mortality does
occur from P. tenuis in elk but at levels too low to affect robust elk
populations. Moose are extremely susceptible to P. tenuis and are not
likely to persist if deer populations are above 15 per square mile;
however, 90% of low deer density habitat surveyed in Wisconsin was
judged as not suitable for moose. Moose and elk are likely to benefit
from reduced deer density in northern Wisconsin.

Wisconsin has one wild elk herd that is located near
Clam Lake in the northwestern part of the state. This herd was
established in 1995 when 25 animals were transplanted from Michigan. The
population has grown to an estimated 120 animals during the past seven
years. The Natural Resources Board (NRB) has approved establishment of a
second wild elk herd in Jackson County. This project is currently on
hold to await completion of CWD surveillance within the central forest
region. In addition, the NRB gave their approval contingent that elk be
added to the wildlife damage program, which is dependent upon DNR
promulgation of rules to establish an elk hunting season. The Jackson
County introduction would need to meet all applicable regulations
regarding the importation of cervids into Wisconsin, as well as all
health testing and monitoring requirements.

Because elk are susceptible to CWD, the presence of CWD
in Wisconsin poses a threat to their restoration in the state. Both the
existing Clam Lake elk population and the proposed Jackson County
population are outside of the CWD eradication and management zones.
Failure to control CWD in the current EZ, however, could result in its
spread throughout Wisconsin’s deer herd, which would threaten the
proposed Jackson County elk population and eventually could threaten the
Clam Lake herd.

Large Carnivores or Scavengers. The gray wolf is
the only large carnivore species that depends heavily on deer as a food
source in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin DNR reclassified wolves from
endangered to threatened in 1999, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service started the process to reclassify them in 2000, and should
complete the process in 2003. Deer are the primary food source for
wolves in Wisconsin.Currently, the CWD management zones are in Wolf
Management Zone 4. This zone includes 28 counties in southern and
eastern Wisconsin that appear to have limited potential for wolves.
Currently, no wolf packs are known to occur in this zone and no wolf
depredations have occurred in the zone (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2002).
During July 2001-June 2002 wolf observations were reported from seven
counties in the zone but these may include misidentifications. An adult
male wolf was killed by a vehicle on the westside of Madison in April
2002; however the presence of this wolf is not likely indicative of a
resident population. Because the areas currently included in the CWD EZs
and IHZs [Intensive Harvest Zones] are outside of the northern and central forest wolf range, the
proposed deer population reductions are not expected to have an impact
on the recovery of Wisconsin’s wolf population. If new EZs were
established in the northern wolf range, it is unlikely that deer
depopulation would have population-level effects on wolves given the
unprecedented high deer populations in northern Wisconsin (Wisconsin DNR
2001) unless CWD was found to be widely distributed in the north.

Several other carnivore and omnivore species - black
bear, coyote, and bobcat - prey on deer fawns when available. In
addition, several species of birds use road-killed deer as a source of
carrion - common raven, American crow, turkey vulture, and the bald
eagle - are among these. These predator/carrion species are generalists
and would not be expected to be greatly affected by changing deer
densities.

Ecological Function and Productivity. Deer may
have indirect impacts on other taxa within the ecosystem ( e.g., birds,
small mammals, herptiles, invertebrates, etc.) or on ecological function
or productivity due to their effect on vegetation. Direct impacts to
ecological function and productivity by deer seems unlikely because
vertebrates contribute very little directly to nutrient cycling and
energy flux. However, deer browsing might alter the composition and
structure of vegetation used by species in other taxa as habitat.
Negative effects on native ecosystems associated with too few
white-tailed deer have not been described or demonstrated in the
scientific literature.

The depopulation proposed for a CWD EZ and IHZ would
likely reduce many of the adverse ecological impacts that high deer
densities in Wisconsin may have caused during recent years. If a large
proportion of hunters decide not to hunt in the future because of human
health concerns, deer harvests in the region may actually decline
resulting in further growth of the deer population and subsequent
greater adverse impacts on regional plant communities and dependent
animal species. Eventually, an infected population would collapse from
CWD and impacts from deer on the ecosystem would be lessened.

If established within the game farm industry there could be a risk
of transmission from game farm animals to free-ranging cervids. (J64.11.w3)

Operational budgets of state and federal wildlife management
agencies are supported by sale of hunting licences; public health concerns regarding the presence of the disease in
wild cervid populations may lead to decreased sales of hunting
licences and therefore decreased income for wildlife management
agencies. (D124,
D143)

If allowed to reach high prevalence, losses of animals due to the
disease could be significant, as has been seen in captive wildlife
research facilities. (J64.11.w3)

There may be costs of treating animals showing clinical signs of disease, but in
which a clinical diagnosis of CWD has not yet been made.

In scrapie-affected sheep flocks it has been noted that "financial losses arise from several sources:
direct loss due to death from scrapie or unnecessary culling, impaired
rearing of lambs which have affected mothers, large indirect effects due
to loss of reputation by individual breeders or the wider repercussions in
the disruption of the world sheep trade and, last, the damage to genetic
improvement schemes where 'avoidance of scrapie' can be a precondition
limiting the choice and therefore the selection potential." (B298.10.w10)

If spillover of the disease occurs from captive to wild cervid
populations, with establishment of new endemic foci, this could impair
the viability of cervid farming in such areas long-term. (J64.21.w17)

Consumer perceptions about the safety of venison could impact
demand for cervid products such as venison, whether this perception
was because of or despite scientific evidence on safety. (D143)

Costs from control measures:

In the game farming industry there could be a large economic impact.
(J64.11.w3)

Captive populations are quarantined if found to be CWD-positive,
which limits the use and
value of infected or exposed animals.(B209.17.w17,
P10.67.w1,
J64.21.w17)

Restrictions by individual states on import of cervids from other
states may significantly impact the cervid breeding stock market. (D143)

Costs from restricted use of land considered to be contaminated with
CWD could be considerable.

In Saskatchewan, four farms where CWD had been detected were
banned from keeping any livestock or growing grain. (W27.15Jan03.cdw1)

Hunting is valued by hunters in recreational terms and as a source
of meat. The value as a source of meat may be decreased by concerns
regarding possible human health implications of CWD. (D143)

Data from a survey of gun deer hunters in Wisconsin indicated
that the perception of health risk by hunters associated with CWD
was lower than that of being shot by a hunter from another party
and no higher than that of contracting Lyme's disease, although
higher than that of being shot by a member of their own hunting
party, falling from a tree stand, having an automobile collision
while travelling to or from their hunting location, giving
themselves a knife wound while gutting their deer or shooting
themselves. (D145)

Data from a survey of gun deer hunters in Wisconsin indicated
that, of those who had not hunted during 2002, for 25% the reason
was because they (22%) or their partner (3%) had concerns about
CWD and the safety of venison and for a further 7% "I do
not believe in hunting only for killing - where I can't eat the
meat." (D145)

Data from a survey of gun deer hunters in Wisconsin indicated
that most hunters were likely to continue hunting unless CWD
reaches epidemic proportions but in such circumstances they would
begin to abandon hunting. (D145)

Cost of having harvested animals tested for CWD (where not paid for
as part of surveillance efforts) due to public health concerns.

Data from models suggests that in the long term, if not managed, CWD
could lead to substantial population reductions and even local
extinctions of infected populations (J40.65.w1,
J40.66.w1,
J64.21.w17). This would lead to a loss of
hunting opportunities.

Costs from control measures:

Possible increase in effort required, particularly for bow hunters,
where baiting is prohibited as a disease control measure. (W400.13Apr03.CWD4,
D109.w7,
D109.w17)

In endemic areas there may be conflicts between disease management
aimed at ensuring the long-term health and viability of cervid
populations and opportunities for recreational hunting. (D126)

Data from a survey of gun deer hunters in Wisconsin indicated
that, of those who had not hunted during 2002, 1% did not hunt
because "There aren't enough deer where I traditionally
hunt." (D145)

Data from a survey of gun deer hunters in Wisconsin indicated
that, of those who had not hunted during 2002, 1% did not hunt
because "I hunt with bait and baiting is now illegal."
(D145)

In areas where populations are being greatly reduced for disease
management purposes there may be a long-term (several years) reduction
of hunting opportunity.

During the herd reduction/depopulation efforts there may be
increased hunting opportunities, however hunters may be asked to
harvest more deer than they can use and to assist with the elimination
of the animal which they traditionally hunt; this could be problematic
for hunters. (D109.w5)

For hunters who strongly disagree with such policies there may
be a need to hunt in a different location.

Data from a survey of gun deer hunters in Wisconsin indicated
that, of those who had not hunted during 2002, 4% did not hunt
because "I disagree with the [Wisconsin] DNR management
approach to CWD and did not hunt as a personal protest."
(D145)

"It is reasonable to assume that, like hunting, CWD could
adversely affect the recreational benefits of those who enjoy wildlife
viewing." (D143)

Data from models suggests that in the long term, if not managed, CWD
could lead to substantial population reductions and even local
extinctions of infected populations. This would reduce opportunities
for watching of cervids.

Costs from control measures:

From increased culling: Potentially there are recreational
conflicts if hunting regulations are changed to increase culling of deer
for the management of CWD. (D109.w5)

Hikers, cyclists and skiers may be concerned about their own
safety during extended deer hunting seasons and may therefore choose
not to undertake their normal recreational activities.

Hunters of other species (e.g. turkey, waterfowl) may be concerned
about their own safety and the safety of their dog, if they normally
hunt with a dog.

From restrictions on Feeding and Baiting: Restrictions on
feeding deer may reduce the opportunity for deer watching. However in
Wisconsin it was noted that while such a ban would be likely to reduce
opportunities to view deer near to homes and businesses it might also
put a higher value "on seeing those deer that remain."
(D109.w7)

From depopulation/herd reduction: Opportunities for wildlife
(deer) viewing would be reduced if the deer population was reduced. (D109.w5)

If deer hunters concerned about CWD choose not to hunt, or not to
hunt in a particular area, this would be expected to reduce the income
of businesses which normally sell hunting supplies, gasoline etc. to
hunters in those areas.

To some extent this may be offset against money, which would
normally be spent on deer hunting, being spent on other
activities.

Data from models suggests that in the long term, if not managed, CWD
could lead to substantial population reductions and even local
extinctions of infected populations (J40.65.w1). This would be expected to reduce
the income for all trades/businesses with an income related to deer
hunting or deer watching.

Costs from control measures:

From increased culling:

In areas where populations are being greatly reduced for disease
management purposes there may be a long-term (several years)
reduction of hunting opportunity. This would result in reduced
income for some businesses associated with hunting. (D109.w5)

From restrictions on Feeding and Baiting:

Businesses selling feed and bait would have a reduced income in
areas where baiting and feeding of deer and elk was restricted or
forbidden. (D109.w7)

It is impossible to state definitively that CWD cannot cause disease
in humans. In order to reduce the risk of transmission of the disease to
humans, traditional activities such as the use of deer brains to tan
hides may be affected.

At this time there is no evidence that CWD has been transmitted to humans, however this is a relatively "new" TSE and it is not
possible to say definitively that CWD cannot be transmitted to humans. It is probable that relatively few people have, to date, eaten meat products from CWD-affected cervids, and it is likely that the incubation period would be long. It is also not yet possible to say definitively that CWD cannot be transmitted to cattle or sheep and that, if such transmission is possible,
the agent might be changed on passage through the other species so
that infection of humans is possible.

In December 1999, the World Health Organization stated, “There is currently no evidence that CWD in cervidae (deer and elk) is transmitted to humans.” They further state, “...no part or product of any animal with evidence of CWD or other TSEs should be fed to any species (human, domestic or captive.)”
(W425.27Mar03.CWD5)

The TSEs have long incubation periods and
relatively few humans are likely to have eaten meat or other products
from CWD-infected cervids. It is probable that, if CWD is
transmissible to humans, it is too early to expect to have detected
any cases.

PrPres has been detected in the tongue muscles of
hamsters and in skeletal muscles of mice experimentally infected with
TSE diseases. These findings indicate that, if CWD is transmissible to
humans, there might be a risk, however slight, from people eating
muscle tissue (meat) from infected animals. (J80.77.w1,
J135.99.w2)

Costs from control measures:

It is possible that control strategies put into place to minimise
potential risks to human health may decrease the availability of some
deer or elk products such as venison and products containing antler
velvet.

If hunters choose not to hunt due to perceived human health risks
this could result in decreased revenues to landowners who normally
gain income from deer leases. (D124)

Land values may decrease, for areas of private land valued for
hunting, if the demand for hunting falls due to concerns regarding the
disease or due to decreased quality of hunting. (D143)

Land values may be affected if CWD were discovered to be
transmissible to livestock or humans. (D143)

Costs from control measures:

Where depopulation is carried out this might have a negative or a
positive impact on property values depending on "the type of
land, land use and the motivation of the parties concerned." (D109.w5)

Agricultural crop damage from deer would be expected to be greatly
reduced in areas where herd reduction or in particular depopulation
was carried out; this effect would last until after the area was
repopulated by deer. (D109.w5,
D109.w6)

Damage to industrial forests would be expected to be greatly reduced
in areas where herd reduction or in particular depopulation was
carried out; this effect would last until after the area was
repopulated by deer. (D109.w5,
D109.w6)

In terms of economics, one estimate for Wisconsin suggested that there would be a reduction in hunting in 2002 of 10-20%.

Using known data for average spend per hunter, it was estimated that $48-$96 million less would be spent by deer hunters on deer hunting.

However it was also considered that more than 90% of the hunters who would
choose not to hunt would be Wisconsin residents, who would be likely to spend the money saved by not hunting within
Wisconsin. This resulted in an estimated $5-$10 million loss from out-of-state hunters.

It was noted however that the loss would be felt most by businesses and households within the hunting economy, such as
"motels, eating and drinking establishments, deer processing facilities, and gas stations where hunters from urban areas spend money
locally."

Potentially, this disease could have a detrimental effect on the
national herd of deer and elk - reducing the overall health status and
the numbers of animals.

Costs from control measures:

Animal health regulations have been established by the USDA Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service approving payment of indemnity for
voluntary depopulation of infected captive cervid herds (9 CFR Part
55) to encourage participation of producers in the disease eradication
programme. There are considerable Federal costs associated with
payment of indemnity for depopulation of infected captive herds of
cervids; payment is made of 95% of the appraised value of the animals
up to $3,000 per animal. (D143)

There is the possibility that trade sanctions may be imposed to
prevent export of CWD. (D143)